Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,65987) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DAGIS v. LATVIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02
The Court has also emphasised the right of all prisoners to conditions of detention which are compatible with human dignity, so as to ensure that the manner and method of execution of the measures imposed do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00
LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02
As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government, the Court points out that there is considerable case-law with respect to the respondent State as concerns the scope and the nature of their obligations arising under Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 113, CEDH 2006-III (extracts); Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 127 and 143, 18 January 2007; Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, §§ 119 and 142, 15 June 2006; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 104, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos. - EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 73443/01
FREIMANIS ET LIDUMS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01
SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02
As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government, the Court points out that there is considerable case-law with respect to the respondent State as concerns the scope and the nature of their obligations arising under Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 113, CEDH 2006-III (extracts); Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 127 and 143, 18 January 2007; Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, §§ 119 and 142, 15 June 2006; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 104, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos. - EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00
KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00
Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02
The Court recalls that although Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example, by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002 IX, and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 69, ECHR 2006-IX). - EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
ESTRIKH v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02
As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government, the Court points out that there is considerable case-law with respect to the respondent State as concerns the scope and the nature of their obligations arising under Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 113, CEDH 2006-III (extracts); Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 127 and 143, 18 January 2007; Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, §§ 119 and 142, 15 June 2006; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 104, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos. - EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 67275/01
CISTIAKOV c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02
KAPITONOVS v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out.), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Ozolins v. Latvia (striking out), no. 12037/03, 2 September 2008 and Borisovs v. Latvia (striking out) no. 6904/02, 2 September 2008). - EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 6904/02
BORISOVS v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out.), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Ozolins v. Latvia (striking out), no. 12037/03, 2 September 2008 and Borisovs v. Latvia (striking out) no. 6904/02, 2 September 2008). - EGMR, 09.09.2008 - 12037/03
OZOLINS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00
KORNAKOVS ET 5 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA LETTONIE
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05
ANTONOVS v. LATVIA
The Court notes that in some cases against Latvia it has been able to scrutinise monitoring activity undertaken by the MADEKKI as regards the quality of medical care in prison (see Daģis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 7843/02, 20 June 2009; Krivosejs v. Latvia, no. 45517/04, 17 January 2012; Van Deilena v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50950/06, 15 May 2012; and Leitendorfs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 35161/03, 3 July 2012).